How Does Representation of Women on Editorial Boards Compare Among Orthopaedic, General Surgery, and Internal Medicine Journals?

Abstract

Background: Women have historically been underrepresented as editors of peer-reviewed medical journals. Studies have demonstrated that there are differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender, suggesting that greater representation by women on editorial boards may improve the quality and diversity of the review process. Therefore, the current representation of women on the editorial boards of orthopaedic journals, particularly compared with peer-reviewed surgical and medical journals, is of interest.

Questions/purposes: (1) What is the representation of women as members of editorial boards of prominent orthopaedic surgery journals? (2) How does it compare with representation on the editorial boards of journals in general surgery and internal medicine?

Methods: The top 15 journals with a strong clinical emphasis based on Impact Factor (Clarivate Analytics) calculated by the 2018 Journal Citation Reports were identified for orthopaedic surgery, general surgery (and all general surgical subspecialties), and internal medicine (with representative internal medicine subspecialties). Clinical publications with their primary editorial office located in the United States led predominantly by physicians or basic scientists were eligible for inclusion. The members of an editorial board were identified from the journals' websites. The gender of editors with gender-neutral names (and editors whose gender we considered uncertain) was identified by an internet search for gender-specific pronouns and/or pictures from an institutional profile. Fisher exact tests and t-tests were used to analyze categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results: Of the editors analyzed, women made up 9% (121 of 1383) of editorial boards in the orthopaedic journals with the highest Impact Factors, compared with 21% (342 of 1665) of general surgery journals (p < 0.001) and 35% (204 of 587) of internal medicine journals (p < 0.001). The overall mean composition of editorial boards of orthopaedic journals was 10% ± 8% women, compared with that of general surgery, which was 19% ± 6% women (p < 0.001), and that of internal medicine, which was 40% ± 19% women (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Women make up a smaller proportion of editorial boards at orthopaedic surgery journals than they do at general surgery and internal medicine journals. However, their representation appears to be comparable to the proportion of women in orthopaedics overall (approximately 6%) and the proportion of women in academic orthopaedics (approximately 19%). Ways to improve the proportion of women on editorial boards might include structured mentorship programs at institutions and personal responsibility for championing mentorship and diversity on an individual level.

Clinical relevance: Increasing representation of women on editorial boards may improve the diversity of perspectives and quality of future published research, generate visible role models for young women considering orthopaedics as a career, and improve patient care through enriching the diversity of our specialty.